Mr. Gillespie:

The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands raised the question as to my position on this bill and asked why I had not registered my position. If he were to read the transcript of the committee hearings, he would discover, as did his colleague from Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), that I stated my position with respect to the amendment in committee and it is on the record. This amendment, as the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands knows, was introduced, not for the first time, at the report stage. Again we are going over the ground. The amendment of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham was dealt with and voted down in committee. Similarly, the amendment of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie was introduced in the committee, considered by the members and voted down. But here again we are going over the same old ground. I made my position very clear.

Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):

The House has a right to do that.

Mr. Gillespie:

I made my position very dear, that this amendment was not needed. I believe the hon. member for Calgary Centre quoted from some of my comments at the committee indicating why I did not believe this amendment is needed at this time. I believe that if hon. members would look at the record and consider the facts, they would realize that the government now has the power to use Petro-Canada in an importing way through the Petro-Canada Act, if it is needed.

I listened very carefully to the remarks of the New Democratic Party member to find out whether he was arguing that this particular amendment was essential to give government the power to have or cause Petro-Canada to move into an importing situation. That has not been the argument of the New Democratic Party. The argument of the proposer of the amendment was that this would feature or advertise an option, or words to that effect. We do not have to put into legislation words which would feature or advertise an option Canada has when we have already that power in existing legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):

The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) rises on a point of order.

Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):

Mr. Speaker, I am not rising on a point of order. I am wondering whether the hon. minister would permit a question.

4290

March 19, 1979

Energy Supplies

Mr. Gillespie:

I would be pleased to answer the hon. member's question at the end of my remarks.

Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):

The minister said that we already have the power. Under the legislation setting up Petro-Canada-

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):

Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the hon. minister has stated already that he will accept the question at the end of his remarks.

Mr. Gillespie:

I would be very pleased to take questions at the end of my remarks, but I should like to deal with the issues raised in the debate on this particular amendment. I have indicated that the power already exists, and therefore I can see no reason why we should put into this bill a particular provision which does not provide any additional power. I think the proposer of the amendment would acknowledge that. That is what I took from his remarks, that it gives the government an option. The government has that option without putting this in.

Mr. Symes:

Not true.

Mr. Gillespie:

Yes, the government has that option. The events of the last few weeks indicate that the government has that power. It can exercise that option by causing Petro-Canada to enter into negotiations with Petroleos de Venezuela, the national oil company of Venezuela. Let it be understood that that is an initiative the government is taking, an initiative for which the official opposition criticized the government, specifically the energy critic, the hon. member for Northumb-erland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence).

Mr. Lawrence:

You are right.

Mr. Gillespie:

As the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) said in his remarks a moment ago, the position of the Conservative party on the functions and place of Petro-Canada at this time are absolutely incredible. I think that is a generous remark; I think it is absolutely ludicrous. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham noted in this debate that the multinational oil companies probably had not always served Canada's best interests. I should like to quote from page 4256 of Hansard dated March 16. When the hon. member was referring to multinational corporations, he said the following:

On many occasions they certainly have not acted in Canada's best interest. They may not even be acting in Canada's best interest right now. They are obviously acting in their own best interest. That is what they are there for. There is no question about that, but I suggest that at times of shortage or impending shortage the one and only asset we can use in the national interest as far as multinationals are concerned is their knowledge and experience and their access to these international pools-

He went on to say:

The very time when there is an impending shortage in the international field is certainly not the best time to change horses.

That is an incredible position for a responsible opposition party to take at the very moment when we are faced with shortages, serious international shortages and additional shortages created by the actions of one of the multinational corpo-

rations. The official opposition argued that we can place more of our confidence in the multinational corporations, and that we should not use Petro-Canada, the national oil company of Canada, to protect and preserve Canadian interests. That is what the hon. member said-that this is not the time for Petro-Canada to act in Canada's interests. He is willing to accept the multinationals even though he may suspect that they are not behaving in Canada's interests.

Of course, this is the same view expressed by the Conservative party when we discussed the first amendment, the one which would place Petro-Canada as one of the representatives of the federal government on the standing group for emergency questions in the International Energy Agency. At that time in the debate they put on the record that, if they were the government, they would not see any reason to use Petro-Canada to protect and guard Canadian interests when the international allocation system will be implemented by multinational corporations. It is quite clear that the official opposition is consistent. It has been against Petro-Canada from the day it was created. Members of the Conservative party voted against it in the House. They have been consistent ever since in damning it, attacking it and arguing that, if they were to form the government, they would destroy it and get rid of it as a policy instrument.

The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham had more to say. At page 4256 he indicated that he would effectively let other countries get in ahead as far as Mexican supplies are concerned. He argued that this was the wrong time for Petro-Canada to be negotiating with Pemex, the national oil company of Mexico, because this would be against the Canadian national interest in some way. The hon. member does not seem to realize that most other countries are lined up trying to get a piece of the Mexican action. He does not seem to realize that Exxon Corporation, acting in its own interests and perhaps to some extent in the interests of the United States, has been lined up trying to get a piece of Mexican production. The hon. member does not seem to realize that the French government has sent over trade missions because it wants to get several hundreds of thousands of barrels a day of Mexican oil. The French government regards Mexican oil as a secure source. The hon. member does not seem to realize that the Spanish government, the German government, the Israeli government, or the Japanese government, are interested. The Japanese government is after 300,000 barrels a day. The negotiations between these other countries and Mexico would have taken place without a Canadian negotiator at the table if the Conservative party had had its way.

Hear, hear!

Oh, oh!

Mr. Gillespie:

The Conservative party has not been following the international energy situation. It is without policies in this area; it is blinded by its pathological opposition to, even hate for, Petro-Canada. The Conservative party has yet to find a way of putting Canada first. If the official opposition had thought a little more about Canada, had relied less on others

March 19, 1979

and had not been prepared to take the lead of the province of Alberta, it might have developed its own energy policy. But it has not; it has no policy on price. Its policy respecting Petro-Canada, the national policy instrument, is to destroy it, to get rid of it, wind it up, sell it, carve it up in pieces and dish it out.

The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) gave an interview to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on the weekend. I have the transcript in front of me. Once again it is quite clear that the Conservative party has never seen and does not now see Petro-Canada as a policy instrument, an instrument for energy policy in Canada.

Mr. Lawrence:

Yes, you are right.

Mr. Gillespie:

Again the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham confirms that the Conservative party does not see and has not seen that Canada needs an instrument for energy policy.

Mr. Lawrence:

No, no.

Mr. Gillespie:

The official opposition has failed to recognize that our industry is largely foreign-controlled, something in the order of 90 per cent or more; that the decisions respecting exploration and development are made by corporations with head offices outside of Canada, with priorities set by those outside of Canada, for very good reason but not always for Canadians.

I am not arguing that multinational corporations and foreign-controlled companies in Canada have never operated to the benefit of Canada, because I think quite clearly they have; and I think that as a result of the Foreign Investment Review Act they are doing so even more because they now have to meet the test of significant benefit to Canada. If more of them will recognize the importance of the principles of international business conduct, particularly those who are not screened by the Foreign Investment Review Agency but who are living in Canada seeking to be good Canadian corporate citizens, and will follow these particular guidelines, Canada will be better served.

However, we are not prepared to base our case just on those particular principles or the protestations of those companies who claim they are following them. We believe that in respect of an industry of this kind, with the degree of foreign control that exists, with an industry that is so strategic-and I emphasize that word "strategic"-in every sense of the word as the oil industry in Canada is, we need a significant policy instrument and a corporation which can give effect to Canadian priorities.

We believe Canada needs an instrument which can be used when a multinational corporation intervenes in an arbitrary way against the best interest of Canada, as the Exxon Corporation did the other day when it diverted oil destined for Canada. We believe we need an instrument of policy that will show that the heavy oils of western Canada represent a priority for Canada.

Energy Supplies

While we might be able to provide an incentive to the corporate sector, and indeed we have, we are not prepared to believe that tax incentives alone will do the things which are needed for Canada. We do not believe they alone will provide the degree of urgency attached to priorities in Canada. Yet the Leader of the Opposition has said tax policy is the key. He has made it quite clear that he would place all his emphasis on tax policy, and that he would be prepared to give more incentives to the oil companies.

Those are questions we will be debating in weeks to come, but clearly they divide the official opposition and the government party. As 1 go through statements by the Leader of the Opposition I find that he has said that "Petro-Canada has cost Canadians a great deal of money, and it has given us virtually no advantages that we would want that we did not have earlier". Those are words he has used and put on the public record-that "Petro-Canada has given us virtually no advantages that we would want that we did not have earlier".

What an incredible admission; what an incredible confession for a man who would be the leader of this country! He made that statement obviously out of ignorance. He is a man who comes from an energy-producing part of the country, yet he has so little interest himself in Canadian energy questions that he would make such a statement as "Petro-Canada has given us virtually no advantages that we would want that we did not have earlier."

Has the Leader of the Opposition or opposition members thought about the Exxon situation and how they would have dealt with it? Have they thought about what vehicle or policy instrument they would have used to work out arrangements with Venezuela? I have not heard from them on that, or on what policy instrument they would have used. I have heard very little from them on the way multinationals have established a particular priority in respect of the development of heavy oils in western Canada. That has been clear. At no time has the Leader of the Opposition indicated that heavy oils in western Canada are important, or that we need a policy instrument through which we can escalate their development for Canada.